Whether it's actually the oldest or not, I don't know, but it's a landmark, built in 1857. And the look of the place is so distinctive....

... that just as I was trying to ask if the place has been used as a movie set, my host was going on about the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" and working his way toward telling me that this is the desk where Anne Hathaway sits at the end of the movie:

Okay, take a picture of me in the Devil Wears Prada memorial chair (with Joe Goldstein, the Sun's legal reporter):

It was fun sitting in on some newspaper meetings. There was a lot of excitement today over the scoop that Iranian President Ahmadinejad plans to visit Ground Zero -- a visit to be facilitated by Mayor Bloomberg. Here's the story:

President Bush, moving quickly to respond to news that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has asked to visit ground zero, had a spokesman issue a statement aimed at Mayor Bloomberg that said – in so many words -- deal with it.

"This is a matter for the City of New York resolve," a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added pointedly: "It seems odd that the president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero."

The White House comment came as news of the proposed visit was being greeted with astonishment and outrage by New Yorkers on both sides of the political spectrum, and also presidential candidates, including Governor Romney and Senator Thompson.

UPDATE: The linked news story has been updated to show that the city is rejecting the Ahmadinejad visit to Ground Zero.

81 comments:

Its not something to see like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. Neiher is it a place for celebrating, in the manner he certainly was on 9/11/01. So good, to have stopped his stunt. Maybe he should go make a private visit to a NYC firehouse. He'd get a real insight into 9/11 that way.

Seven,I took my 13 year old son this summer because he wanted to see it. We saw the Flight 93 memorial, too. It was a solemn reminder to two midwestern boys what kind of people we face. I'm glad we went.

you know he might be crazy, but AhmadinrockmeAmadeus (hat tip to Colbert) is also a PR genius...

think about it...if they let him go to ground zero he's got a great photo-op for his looney tunes back home...get rejected and he's the spurned soulful peacenik who just wants to show how much he's really against terrorism (pauses while I wash my mouth out with tobasco and a brillo pad).

My daughter took me to Ground Zero last summer and I'm gratified she cares. I was in the city with her a week or so after 9-11 and we had to wear face masks to go downtown. She was 14 at the time and not quite absorbing the significance of the attack, but now she gets it. We both would love to see structures taller than the Twin Towers built on the spot and ASAP.

"The linked news story has been updated to show that the city is rejecting the Ahmadinejad visit to Ground Zero."

Surprising. Bloomberg usually tries his best to be an absolute turd when given the opportunity. He and Ahmadinejad both love restrictive moralist government. Smoking, apostasy, trans-fats, Sharia, it's just a difference of details.

I wonder what Ahmadinejad planned to do to upstage his friend Hugo Chavez's visit to New York, when he gave cut-rate heating oil to people in Harlem? Maybe free suits to po-mo hipsters tired of buying expensive cheap-looking suits from Comme Des Garçons? Hell, there are plenty of people here who would have lined up to greet this brave resister of the Chimpler's empire, even without the promise of rayon suits.

Men need to stop listening to the Maxines of the world. I tire of seeing beautiful masculine faces ruined by waxing and plucked eyebrows, and tired of seeing human faces that look like they're made of rotationally-molded polyethylene. Nothing is hotter than some facial hair and a distinctive nose, except perhaps a face having those features whispering in my ear in the dark.

Speaking of plastic surgery mistakes, I wish women would realize how stupid those inflated upper lips make them look. I think the "Flipping Out" guy on Bravo has also had it done, so I shouldn't blame women only.

I just want to put in my two cents that the hyperbole "Ground Zero" for damage to a tiny portion of a city ought to go on the 9/11 scrapheap.

A real ground zero is 5 square miles of Dresden or Hiroshima burned to a crisp, not 5 acres of land.A real groud zero is Chernobyl or a dinosaur-killing impact crater.

Not one city block.

Toss the dumb "Ground Zero", along with other hyped up nonsensical things from 2001 like "They hate us for our freedoms." And the insipid quote "We have to be perfect 100% of the time, the terrorists only have to be lucky once to destroy us."

(In a matchup of brains between a TSA security guard and an elite radical Islamist, I doubt the TSA person would be "perfect" 100% of the time.) Lesson: Accept as the Marines do that the terrorists are a well-thinking adaptive enemy that will succeed part of the time. A war is on. Americans will die. Hopefully much less than the radical Muslims that we whack(or the souless minions of the evil Bush-Hitler, if you are a Lefty)

As an historical event, it will linger only because it was a media spectacular that can guarantee repeat business, like the Titanic. As compared to other real war tragedies, it was fairly minor. Muslims killed perhaps 17 million people in the 20th Century. 9/11 was just a bad day compared to the toll taken in Algeria, Armenia, Sudan, Uganda, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh.More people alive today weep for the people on the Titanic than those lost at Verdun, the Somme, and Kursk - especially since only 4-5% of Americans even know one of the 3 latter things actually happened.

The city, though, was right to tell Ahmadinejad to buzz off from his visit to the WTC Pit. He only wanted the PR. And the pain of this enemy attack is still somewhat with us, though like Cold Harbor - less and less with each year...As it should be.

Yes, Palladian, anyone who criticizes Ann is a psycho! But you know what? So are groupies like you."

LOL. "Jiminy C." is AJD too! If you click on the name, it takes you to the same unavailable Blogger profile page as clicking on "Donald D." does, as does clicking on AJD's from an old post. Profile number 02407299546060974148, many names but one person- AJD.

I didn't say that anyone who criticizes Ann is a psycho. I said that you are a psycho. Ann asked you to go away once, AJD. You're not fooling us. Why won't you go?

Alpha -- I know you fancy yourself a smart guy, in the know, that sort of thing, so please allow me to make you privy to the way this works:

We have a list of bad countries. Iran is on it. So is Cuba. So are some others. When leaders and other spies and other people from those countries come to the United Nations, they are frequently and regularly severely restricted in their travel. They can't, for example, leave the Great New York City area.

Primarily, this is to keep tabs on these people and limit spying. The rationale is that these people would never be allowed here at all but for the fact that the United Nations is here. They are here in the country to conduct official diplomacy concerning the U.N. That's it.

Ground Zero has been used for self-aggrandizing photo ops and P.R. stunts by well-known pompous lying blowhard and asshole Rudy Giuliani and aggressive imbecile, asshole and war criminal George Bush, so why not let Ahmadinejad visit? The property is not sacred ground, and what purpose is served by denying him a chance to visit?

Bush is responsible for more deaths of innocents than Ahmadinejad--do we know he's responsible for ANY deaths of innocents?--and Giuliani is certainly as odious a public figure as Ahmadinejad has been depicted in our media...but with Giuliani we have first hand evidence of his odiousness; aside from his loony public statements, how else is Ahmadinejad equivalent in actual fact to Giuliani?

Why would we go to war to prevent something we have no proof is imminent? The administration's assertions notwithstanding, there is no proof Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. Their claim is that they are developing nuclear technology for purposes of generating electricity...just as our domestic nuclear power plants are designed to do. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and, as such, they are legally entitled to pursue nuclear technology for such purposes. (Israel, by the way, is NOT a signatory to the treaty, and developed its nuclear weapons program extralegally, if one wants to accept that nations may be legally permitted or prohibited to develop nuclear weapons.)

Even IF Iran were trying to develop nuclear weapons, where is our legal right to initiate war against them to prevent it? As General Abaizaid recently said, we could live in a world where Iran had nuclear weapons, just as we have with Russia for half a century, and other countries for lesser periods of time. I am not sanguine at the thought of more and more countries--whether foe or ally--obtaining nuclear weapons, as this simply makes more likely the possibility of a nuclear exchange at some point. However, the Pandora's Box of nuclear weaponry has long been open, and their development will spread. Are we going to attack every nation that tries to pursue this technology?

If we were to attack Iran at this time or in the near future, based only on the information we have, and without there being a compelling self-defense basis, we would be committing a war crime, just as we have in invading and continuing to occupy Iraq.

Let's see your proof, Ralph. And I don't mean substance-free declarations made by our present administration, who have already shown themselves to be liars and criminals, no more worthy of trush than John Gotti.

All these comments, and yet nobody is talking about the NY Sun. What a wonderful paper in every way, and virtually unknown outside the city, I think. Even the crossword equals or surpasses the NYT; Peter Gordon pays constructors $1 more than Will Shortz to ensure this.

Sixty-five, I said something nice about the NY Sun early in the thread and so nobody else had to. But you're right, the alternatives to Sulzberger's publication should be explored and supported more, and The Sun is such a worthy one.

As General Abaizaid recently said, we could live in a world where Iran had nuclear weapons, just as we have with Russia for half a century

With all due respect to the general, the Russians were at least sane. I am not willing to be so generous with a national leader whose goal is to fulfill his destiny by bringing out the 12th Imam. Whether its rhetoric or not, if Bush made a similar comment about jump starting the second coming of Christ, you'd see millions in the streets protesting.

Personally I'm less worried about Armageddonjad launching a nuke tipped missle at us versus loading one in say, an oil tanker and then later claiming innocence, must have been some neo-nazis in Germany or some sort.

We could live with a nuclear Russia because deterrence worked but when you are dealing with a people who 'love death more than we love life', well that's a holocaust waiting to happen.

Just as an aside, do you think removing a brutal dictator and trying to install a free, peaceful, democratic society constitutes a warcrime?

Hoosier Daddy makes two important points I suspect we often lose sight of: (1) These Islamic terrorists, shiites or sunni, unlike the IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, Shining path and the like, are will to commit suicide to the further their ends. That makes them a much more difficult threat to stop, IMO and (2) in addition to closing the straits of Hormuz, an other even more ominous alternative is to provide Hamas with a warhead.

Whether its rhetoric or not, if Bush made a similar comment about jump starting the second coming of Christ, you'd see millions in the streets protesting.

I really doubt it. Much of the current evangelical Christian support for Israel is based on the belief that this must happen in order to bring about the events described in Revelations.

Remember Tom DeLay's junkets to Israel? It's well acknowledged -- even by Israelis -- that these evangelical "Friends of Israel" have religious motivations and will work to pursue them over national interests:

In 2005, in a snub to the Bush administration, DeLay was the "driving force behind the rejection of direct aid" to the Palestinian Authority. The deal was "brokered" by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In the wake of the legislation, some Jewish leaders expressed concern "about the degree to which the Texas Republican, an evangelical Christian who opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, will go to undercut American and Israeli attempts to achieve a two-state solution."

In 2005, in a snub to the Bush administration, DeLay was the "driving force behind the rejection of direct aid" to the Palestinian Authority.

That would be the same Palestinian Authority that just got done with its annual official celebration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Gosh, shame on those evil Jews and Republicans for not sending enough money to our enemies.

And I don't mean substance-free declarations made by our present administration, who have already shown themselves to be [blah blah whatever]

Ok, we've established that you're uninterested in hearing the truth from Americans. But what's your paranoid conspiracy theory to explain the French and British findings that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Or the IAEA's discovery of documents detailing Iranian plans to build HEU nuclear weapons? Or the UN findings that Iran has been attempting to produce weapons-grade uranium, and has been importing nuclear and ballistic missile technology?

I understand that you would prefer that Saddam Hussein still be running Iraq, and you resent Bush for "lying" us into deposing him. But if you think Americans are the only ones who think Iran's got a nuclear weapons program, you're totally insane.

Those who consider the Iranians to be "insane" or any graver threat to us than the Soviets had been reveal their own ignorance and prejudice. I don't claim to be an expert of Iran, or even unusually knowledgeable, but I don't see any reason to think they're insane. Frankly, I think Bush and Cheney are insane to talk of bombing Iran, (and reportedly, considering the possible use of tactical nuclear missles).

As for Revenant, I don't "prefer" that Hussein were still running Iraq, if by that you presume or insinuate that I favored a tryannical murderer and torturer, but he was no threat to us, and we had no legal right to invade Iraq and depose his government. This is not the way the world works: America does not have a special right or privilege to dictate to other nations how they will behave or govern themselves, and we do not have a right to invade, depose and execute world leaders merely because we deplore them, either rightly or wrongly.

Simply put, Bush and Company DID lie to justify a war of aggression, and no matter how you spin it, that is illegal and a war crime, and the result is a maelstrom of murder, torture and chaos in Iraq. Bush has unleashed more death in Iraq than Hussein ever did, and Bush is the greater criminal.

As for the "thinking" of other nations that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, where is THEIR proof? There were those world leaders--at least two--who asserted that Hussein possessed WMD and was within "a year" of developing a nuclear weapon at the time we invaded: all wrong, all lies.

Iran may very well have plans to develop nuclear weapons, but we don't know that, and we have no proof of that at this time. We do know that, at least, they're developing nuclear power technology, which they have admitted and which they're legally entitled to do. We cannot make threats and launch bombing sorties merely because we "think" or assert they may be developing nuclear weapons.

Whatever Iran may be up to, we're far far far from the point where even initial discussion of "military" "solutions" (sic) is warranted, and our readiness to conceive of, to hunger for destruction of Iran for perceived but unproven "wrongs" reveals how depraved we have become, how corrupted and perverted our so-called "rule of law."

Robert Cook -- You are stupendously wrong on so many levels that doing justice to your vast wrongness would require much more time than you are worth. Let's hit the highlights:

1. Is it insane to believe that a nation should be wiped out from the world? Is it insane to believe that we are in an end-of-the-world war between good and evil? Those are two of the things that the Iranian regime believes.

By the way, if it's true that you aren't knowledgeable on a subject, why do you have an opinion on it? Isn't your opinion ill-informed at best, by your own admission?

2. Bush and Company DID lie to justify a war of aggression, and no matter how you spin it, that is illegal and a war crime. Please explain to us which statute you plan to use to prosecute Bush and Cheney for their ostensible lies. What statute makes it illegal to for leaders to lie? If there is a statute, who will prosecute? Who will enforce the prosecution?

Do you not know? Pray tell, Robert, is this another area in which you aren't particularly knowledgeable?

My belief, Robert, is that the idea of rule of law has become so perverted because people who really don't know much about rules or law, and who certainly haven't ever given the institutions of rules and law any in-depth thought -- these people are too common. They run around making crap up about what's legal -- exactly like you.

but he was no threat to us, and we had no legal right to invade Iraq and depose his government. This is not the way the world works: America does not have a special right or privilege to dictate to other nations how they will behave or govern themselves, and we do not have a right to invade, depose and execute world leaders merely because we deplore them, either rightly or wrongly.

How many war crimes is the Iranian regime guilty of since 1979? What would be justice in their abominable case?

Come on, dude. Answer. Tell us about war crimes and your plans to prosecute and enforce your prosecution. Because, seriously, pal, without any of that, you are no better than the God hates fags guys. You are far, far worse in fact, because at least they have a plan for prosecution and enforcement.

If you have nothing more to say than So and so is guilty of war crimes, please, take your peacist fervor elsewhere. It's demeaning to the level of intellect here.

"Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime."

These principles became binding law when we became signatories to the Geneva Conventions Accords. If you know your Constitution, you'll know this makes these principles the law of the land. The United States was a vigorous and assertive proponent of these accords at the time they were established.

Who is the arresting authority? I suppose it would be any other signatory nation who decides to try to arrest our officials. Or even officers of the court here in America. As it stands now, Henry Kissinger reportedly won't fly to certain countries for fear of being arrested for his alleged war crimes dating back to the Viet Nam years, as well as for his alleged complicity in supporting the coup in Chile which put Pinochet in power, an earlier 9/11 (9/11/73).

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger

But of course, even if there is no agency that can succeed in enforcing a law does not mean the law does not hold force. In other words, a murderer who escapes prosecution and punishment for his crime is no less a murderer; he's simply a killer who got away with it.

Robert -- Nothing in the Geneva Conventions or its Protocols addresses aggression.

Your quote from Henry Kissinger is comically false.

If you believe that there is any country in the world that would hold an American like Henry Kissinger as a prisoner, you are completely insane. The trade repercussions alone would make it loony, let alone the military ones.

I try not to call people names in these threads. I do. But you are clearly an idiot.

"Principle VlThe crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

1. Crimes against peace: 1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; 2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). 2. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. 3. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

The whole reason they had Jay Bybee and John Yoo render their infamous "torture memos," which gave grounds to Alberto Gonzalez to term the Geneva Conventions "quaint," was because they were fearful they could be held accountable for war crimes in their treatment of Iraqi prisoners; they wanted to have a legal opinion, however ill-considered, they could point to to evade legal responsibility for their crimes. They knew very well what they were doing.

Here's a column by John Dean:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050114.html

A relevant passage: "Other international law, and law of war, experts tell me that Bybee's memo (not to mention a few others) is damning evidence suggesting a common plan on the part of the Administration to violate the laws of war. Strikingly, such a "common plan," or conspiracy, is itself a war crime."